[Rory]

An Anarchist? Ewww. Gross gross gross. I might as well run for Prime Minister of England or something if I've truly sunk that low. I'd become a Unitarian/Universalist before becoming an Anarchist, and trust me, Im not looking to do that any time soon.

What good is a world with no government? The more oppressive the better, I say.

[Chyld]

I might as well run for Prime Minister of England or something if I've truly sunk that low.

OI! Leave our Bony Tony alone!

[WalrusOfPlastic]

WalrusOfPlastic might be an Anarachist.
That's what they're saying anyway.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- I'm guessing he listens to propaghandi. I used to subscribe to socialist ideas but after marching with the black bloc in a rally in DC I became an anarchist. Speaking of the BB aren't they the blokes he fought with in Seattle? I saw a lot of pics from that one but regrettably didn't attend.

Anarchism isn't too bad, it's really just a good excuse to oppose tyranical governments no matter what kind they are. For instance, Anarchists have been killed by both Soviet and Capitalist oppressors and don't even get me started on fascists. I think the most definate natural enemy of the anarchist is teh fascist so I guess Walrus and I aught to throw molotov cocktails at Nate and Laura.

[Rory]

So Anarchists aren't really anarchists then? Because I was always under the impression that anarchists opposed pretty much any form of government. Certainly those people must exist. Are there different degrees of Anarchism, maybe? And if you are, say, a lower degree of Anarchist, why not just call yourself a libertarian, or a democrat, or something silly like that? I don't think anyone calls Libertarians Anarchists, yet they certainly oppose oppresive forms of government.

[J m HofMarN]

Well in principle we oppose all forms of government yes. That means we're more likely to point out what governments are doing wrong no matter what. Once you subscribe to a party ideology you have to kind of turn a blind eye to that party's misdeeds sometimes. But since there's no anarchists in government we have noone to back up so we're free to even-handedly fight against democrats and republicans both. And libertarians or greens or other parties? They never get elected. It's often been point out that the most organized and active political force in this country other than the republicans and democrats is the anarcists.

[WalrusOfPlastic]

So, what gets me is the association of words like "chaos", "violence" and even "arsen" with Anarchy. It is assumed that Anarchists want chaos. This is not true, at least neccisarily. As a practicing Anarchist I do not want chaos and it is actually my belief that government is not the opposite of chaos at all and that if government were to be irradicated everyone would not set themselves on fire and jump out of their windows.

At the same time, I am:
1.)... a hopless Anarchist that cannot possibly see a bright Anarchal future for much longer than his own lifetime, that is with the exception of nuclear disaster.
2.)... far too individualistic to want to impose my views on others. If a group of people wants a government, go for it. In the mean time I will be an Anarchist whether my country is or not. I won't wait for my government to fall to behave the way I believe. No one has power over me unless I give it (with some physical exceptions of course).

[J m HofMarN]

Walrus- I completely agree. Anarchy is not necessarily chaos. I think that the government kind of tells us that we need them, makes us think we need them. The idea is that we're bad people and that we need good people in our government to make us behave. I know this isn't true. I've comitted crimes and the government hasn't stopped me. I say crimes not by my definition but theirs. I smoke pot because I want to. I dont commit murder because I don't want to. And, really, if someone wants to kill another human being bad enough I don't really think that the threat of punishment will stop them.

Therefore the government isn't really stopping anyone from doing anything, it's still our choice. I'll now address all of the annonymous one's posts in sequential order.

So even if a really nice, non tyrannical government comes along, you have to oppose that too.

That's wrong. Do the democrats say anything bad when the republicans lower taxes for single working moms? (not that they'd EVER do that) No, they don't. They may not like the republicans but they don't blindly oppose everything they do. Same with Anarchists we're as sane as anyone else. If a government does something right and is generally good we keep silent most of the time. When they do something wrong we're going to tell them about it. That's perfectly healthy and there is nothing unpatriotic about it.

Why? If I truly believe in the fundamental principles (whatever those are) that a particular party is founded upon, wouldn't I be more likely to speak out when they stray from those principles? After all, I'm not some bloody politician; I'm a human being who lives and believes in a certain code of ethics.

The ruling parties have COMPLETELY strayed from both their principles. The Republicans were the party that freed the slaves. Now they're the party of bigots, war mongers, rich people and christian nut-wads. The democrats are slightly less twisted but their problem is they're about as set in their ideals as a wet noodle ever since Clinton left the scene.

Speaking of Clinton did you notice how most democrats didn't say much about his adultery thing? Would you say that if they were opposing Clinton they might have said more? I don't consider adultery to be a public crime so much as a private and family crime but the point still stands. There's also the fact that all those involved in government have their interests set in said government. For instance the man leading an unnecessary war will not suggest that said war be ended because then he'll be out of a job.

I failed to get the point of your last paragraph. However I challenge anyone to point out any government ever that has fully lived up to its ideals. The Nazis were pretty thorough about it but they even left some "inferior" people alive and I doubt that every person in Germany had a volkswagen by 1943 so even they failed. And might I add that the flaws in their ideals or hte inability to live up to them eventually results in the fall of all governments so while government types scramble to form a new one we anarchists get to sit back and say "we told you so"

[Mist]

The US ruling parties aren't really even different parties anymore. They all have pretty similar beliefs, and essentially are driven by money in the end. That's my opinion, at least. Voting for a president is almost a joke when a==b and you have a choice between a and b. The only real difference between them, that I can see is how they would set about accomplishing their ideals. The end goals are pretty similar. The few parties that are different are squashed right off the bat, and everything reverts back to the demos and republicans, so any element of difference or change is eliminated before the real race even begins.

This post has been edited by Mist: 07 June 2004 - 04:14 AM

[Rory]

I was the Anonymous poster. I forgot to log in.

I shall attempt to clarify and defend my views:

"Anarchy is not necessarily chaos. I think that the government kind of tells us that we need them, makes us think we need them. The idea is that we're bad people and that we need good people in our government to make us behave. I know this isn't true. "

Since when is that the idea of government? I was under impression that the intended purpose of the government is to support an economic system, provide relief to those who need it, support a fair and just system of law, etc. How does anarchy deal with these needs? Here's a few problems that happen every day that the existence of government, and everything that comes with that government, makes it easy to solve. I'll tell you how the appropriate government system can solve them. Please tell me how these problems would be solved under a system of Anarchy.

1. My (the average american's) house catches on fire. I call the fire department; they put out the fire.

2. I insult my neighbor. He punches me in the eye. I go to the hospital and get it treated before suffering from permanant blindness. The hospital bill is 500 dollars. My neighbor refuses to pay, citing that I got what I deserved. I take my neighbor to court. An impartial judge hears the case, and decides that my neighbor must pay me 500 dollars.

3. I own and run a general store. A man in a mask comes in and robs it. I report the robbery. The police track the man down. He is found guilty of the crime, and is sent to jail. As a result, he is unable to rob me (or anyone else) for a period of time in the future. Furthermore, he knows that, if he robs me or anyone else again, he will be sent to jail again, so he is less likely to do so in the future.

4. I lose my job. I go on unemployment until I can find a new one. As a result, I can afford to eat for the next few monthes. Yay.

5. I am a citezen of Canada. I break my leg. I go to the hospital and get it treated free of charge.

"And, really, if someone wants to kill another human being bad enough I don't really think that the threat of punishment will stop them."

Don't be so sure. When commiting an action, don't you think at least some people consider the pros and cons of said action before commiting it? Murder has a big con. And, even if someone does commit murder, we can do our best to make sure that person doesn't commit murder again. Now, I'm not going to preach the virtues of our prison system (it has a lot of problems), but its a whole lot better than letting a murderor run free.

But lets not focus on murder. How about theft? How about bank fraud? I'm sure you'll agree with me that those things are wrong, yet a lot of people contemplate commiting such acts every day. Yet, I can only imagine that, because of the penalties such acts bring, a lot of people don't do these things. And if they do, they suffer the consequences for their decisions. Which is a good thing, in my opinion.

"I've comitted crimes and the government hasn't stopped me. I say crimes not by my definition but theirs. I smoke pot because I want to."

I think this is an example of a bad law, not a reason why government should be abolished. Smoking pot doesn't really hurt anyone (not any more so than alchohol, anyway), but yourself. Therefor, it should probably be legalized.

This is a good time to cite the difference between commiting an act of Civil Disobediance and being a Die Hard Anarchist. Someone who commits an act of Civil Disobediance can still believe in a certain type of government system, yet still oppose those laws s/he thinks are unjust. An Anarchist is stuck opposing any government system, even one that allows for maximum freedom. This just seems like a mistake.

"I dont commit murder because I don't want to."

Thank god. But I hope you aren't saying that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences. Regardless of how much someone may Want to kill me, I don't believe they have the right to. In fact, I think laws and barriers should be put in place to make it very difficult for someone to commit such an act. (the current laws and barriers do this job quite well, I think.)

"If a government does something right and is generally good we keep silent most of the time."

Why? You aren't liberals. You aren't looking for the government to play a specific part in our lives. You aren't looking for the government to do a "good job" (at least, not ideally.)

"Well in principle we oppose all forms of government yes."

Then, how can any government do something right?

"That's perfectly healthy and there is nothing unpatriotic about it."

Agreed. Your patriotism isn't on trial here.

"The ruling parties have COMPLETELY strayed from both their principles. The Republicans were the party that freed the slaves. Now they're the party of bigots, war mongers, rich people and christian nut-wads."

I hope you do not mean to say that government parties cannot change and adapt. Now, granted, I'm not crazy about the Republican party, but it would be doing them a deservice to hold views they held almost 100 years ago against them now. Think of a political party as a person, if it helps. As a person gets older, his ideals and the way he views the world are bound to change. The same is true of a political party. Hold the Republican party to the ideals it has now, or the ones it had within the last twenty or so years; don't compare it to its namesake from the Civil War.

"The democrats are slightly less twisted but their problem is they're about as set in their ideals as a wet noodle ever since Clinton left the scene."

And this has been pointed out by many supporters of the Democratic party, people who do believe in the ideals the party represents. Just because some shmucks at the top are having trouble getting their act together doesn't mean every democrat (or even most democrats) is abandoning his or her ideals.

Furthermore, someone doesn't have to be an Anarchist to criticize the democrats and the republicans. Someone doesn't even have to belong to a political party. I can have a lot of problems with how the government is run, and still support some kind of government. So being an anarchist doesnt offer any special advantage in that department.

"Speaking of Clinton did you notice how most democrats didn't say much about his adultery thing? Would you say that if they were opposing Clinton they might have said more? I don't consider adultery to be a public crime so much as a private and family crime but the point still stands. "

Actually, I think that rather hurts your point. If the democrats agree with you, which I'd imagine they do, then it makes sense that they'd be less likely to mention it.

"However I challenge anyone to point out any government ever that has fully lived up to its ideals."

Well, of course governments never fully live up to their ideals. I might add that the Anarchists don't either. The country hasn't been plunged into Anarchy yet; if you think about it, the Anarchists are really doing a rather poor job of living to their ideals.

Politics involve tons of compromises; compromises are necessary to get things done. And certainly, political parties probably sometimes make too many compromises, but hey, its better than nothing.

My point is that the individual democrat, or the individual republican or the individual Independant Voter Who Believes in X can still hold to a system of ideals, and can judge for him or herself whether s/he wants to support a party that may or may not have strayed to far from its principles. And even if said individual does support a certain party, that doesn't mean s/he can't criticise that party when it fucks up.

[WalrusOfPlastic]

I have no doubt, Rory, that if society were left the way it is in America and government were abolished a good deal of hell would break loose. This is why I am a said "hopless Anarchist". I do not believe that Anarchy can be accomplished in this present state of mass government and frankly I wouldn't want it to in the same sense that as desperately I want alternative fules for cars I know that if the oil industry were to crash suddenly there would again be a significant amount of hell broken loose.

I would like to grab a smalll group of people claim a certain portion of land for an Anarchal experiment and live my ideals, but I'm not sure the American government would jump at a chance to let me do that.

Oh well. I'm all for personal Anarchy. Hurray.

[J m HofMarN]

-Sighs- You Canadians just don't understand, what with your low violent death rates, your liberal drug laws and your caring government and free health care.

That said, let me make my rebuttal.

Since when is that the idea of government? I was under impression that the intended purpose of the government is to support an economic system, provide relief to those who need it, support a fair and just system of law, etc. How does anarchy deal with these needs?

The excuse for government is that we human beings are not self sufficient, good natured and caring enough to govern ourselves and take care of our fellow humans. I think this is false. It is the base reasoning behind government. Have you ever read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? All of the patients believed there was something inherently wrong with them and that they needed nurse Ratchett (the combine- government) to keep them safe and in line. Bull.

1. My (the average american's) house catches on fire. I call the fire department; they put out the fire.

This is a service, not a kind of government. Anarchists only object to organizations powerful enough to become tyranical and exert authority. A community fire department is not the same thing as a government. And indeed could easily exist without a government.

2. I insult my neighbor. He punches me in the eye. I go to the hospital and get it treated before suffering from permanant blindness. The hospital bill is 500 dollars. My neighbor refuses to pay, citing that I got what I deserved. I take my neighbor to court. An impartial judge hears the case, and decides that my neighbor must pay me 500 dollars.

You forget that your court costs probably exceed 500 dollars as well as your lost wages. Yes, this is a good situation but couldn't you go to a local man of some repute to have your problem solved just as easily as going to a judge?

3. I own and run a general store. A man in a mask comes in and robs it. I report the robbery. The police track the man down. He is found guilty of the crime, and is sent to jail. As a result, he is unable to rob me (or anyone else) for a period of time in the future. Furthermore, he knows that, if he robs me or anyone else again, he will be sent to jail again, so he is less likely to do so in the future.

Why did the man rob your general store? Likely because due to the war on drugs it is incredibly costly for him to get his fix. Or perhaps, liek a family in New England, he was facing losing his home because he was laid off from his job and can't pay his bills. Maybe his family lost their welfare and he needs the money for food. And yet, in a world where the president commits murder in Iraq in order to make money from oil dealings, this man trying to feed his family is criminalized while butchers from Baghdad are given medals.

Now on to the big problem that I have with your story. Firstly this man still robs you whether you're in an anarchaic system or a so-called democracy so the government hasn't kept you safe. Also this man is going to be put into the prison industry. It is the fastest growing sector in US employment. Half of those imprisoned are African Americans and many have been tortured or wrongly convicted, Amnesty international has already called for the release of two political prisoners held in the US.

They're going to waste a tremendous amount of your money on this gentleman and all that will come of it is that he'll gain new criminal skills and get out in a few years. Most of those arrested on any given day are repeat offenders who have been in jails before.

4. I lose my job. I go on unemployment until I can find a new one. As a result, I can afford to eat for the next few monthes. Yay.

Granted, that's a good thing. However do you think nearly as many people would be unemployed today if the government didn't allow the corporations to out-source jobs to foreign countries? The reason there is unemployment here is all our jobs are being sent to southeast asia or Mexico while our two parties look on approvingly because they reap profits from it. Meanwhile the media ignores it because they're owned by the same people who own teh companies who also own the government. We're not jsut against government, we're against globalist ruthless corporations which is why we anarchists get along so well with our socialist and communist brothers.

5. I am a citezen of Canada. I break my leg. I go to the hospital and get it treated free of charge.

I don't think any anarchists are opposing that aspect of Canada's government. However here in the states the capitalists have free reign over medicine so many people are forced to try to pay doctor's bills of millions of dollars for the care they need.

And no, the government does not prevent people from comitting crimes. Do you really believe that everyone could well become a thief or a con-artist or a rapist or etc etc if there were no consequences? I have to beg to differ. I think if the government ceased to be people would still go to their jobs and live their lives much the same as before.

This is a good time to cite the difference between commiting an act of Civil Disobediance and being a Die Hard Anarchist. Someone who commits an act of Civil Disobediance can still believe in a certain type of government system, yet still oppose those laws s/he thinks are unjust. An Anarchist is stuck opposing any government system, even one that allows for maximum freedom. This just seems like a mistake.

Yes, but ideas naturally can be deviated from. For instance "we want very little torture" could be negotiated down to "we want slightly less torture" However when someone stands up and says "we want no torture and we want the torturers to be shot, dragged through the streets, and burned at the stake" this can be negotiated down to "we only want the torturers to serve lengthy prison sentences and be anally violated once or twice maybe." Now see, that's what I call negotiation.

You might not like crunchy peanut butter. You may wish that crunchy peanut butter did not exist. However you tolerate crunchy peanut butter as long as it is not repressing your sandwhich. What if you changed your ideals to "I kind of dislike crunchy peanut butter a little" Don't you think that people might not be so careful then to avoid putting crunchy peanut butter on your sandwhich?

So, in a way it's rather helpful for regular liberals and even moderate socialists to have people like the Black Block or the Red Block around. That lets people see what the alternative is, namely a lot of masked men with molotov cocktails and makeshift riot shields.

Why? You aren't liberals. You aren't looking for the government to play a specific part in our lives. You aren't looking for the government to do a "good job" (at least, not ideally.)

I doubt that the Soviets were looking for us to do a good job but when we ended segregation I doubt they criticized it highly. However that dosn't mean they were won over either. Whenever the government does something right we will surely admit it but we're still going to demand more. If the government continues to do the right thing as it certainly hasn't anarchists will slowly loose steam but it dosnt mean we'll lose vigillance.

I hope you do not mean to say that government parties cannot change and adapt.

It should be able to change for the better. However when the same party that freed the slaves (even though I abhor the favoring of the rich and the poor military leadership during the civil war) is now responsible for so much evil people should be coming out against this. They are also te most agressive force on the planet and have been responsible for more death in the past forty years than any other current government. two million vietnamese, five hundred thousand iraqis, 4000 panamanians, untold thousands of cubans, 10000 nicaraguans, twenty thousand east timorese, unknown thousands in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, the murder of Che Guevara and his freedom fighters in Bolivia (they were buried in a mass grave by the way) not to mention the despicable and horrific genocide in occupied Palestine. And that dosnt even count the Americans they've butchered. Mark Clark, Fred Hampton, the kent four, at least one person in Berkely, hundreds of unknown Black Panther members, more than likely Malcolm X and M. L. King, and that's only civilians.

At least 51000 american servicemen have been killed in various criminal acts such as the storming of Panama, the genocide in Vietnam and now the war against Iraq. None of these actions by the way were internationally approved and the attack on Panama and subsequent fire bombing of Panama city were even condemned as unlawful by the UN.

That amounts to at least four million people killed by one government, either directly or under their orders and funding. Now Anarchy really does sound good compared to that. Oh and I forgot to include the overtrow of Salvador Allende, that adds another ten thousand dead. And there are still hundreds of thousands imprisoned by this government around the world, many as I've said are likely victims of torture. These are not good people.

My point is that the individual democrat, or the individual republican or the individual Independant Voter Who Believes in X can still hold to a system of ideals, and can judge for him or herself whether s/he wants to support a party that may or may not have strayed to far from its principles. And even if said individual does support a certain party, that doesn't mean s/he can't criticise that party when it fucks up.

Yes but it is the belief that they need a government that weakens their position. The current choice in America is between a fascist moron and a slightly less fascist moron. They're both pro war anti gay and pro tax cuts for rich folks. Moreover they both backed the PATRIOT act. There's no choice there but people will invariably go with the lesser evil. Still there will be evil in the whitehouse and I don't agree with that. I despise Bush as much as I despise Kerry. I intend to vote though, even though I know it's pointless, because I hope that Nader can take enough of the vote to qualify for federal funds.

So you see, most people who want Bush in office will vote for bush as he is the only candidate to properly represent their horrific idea of how the country should be run. Those who whould vote for slightly less than Bush can decide between Kerry or Bush when he promises to be a nice guy. People who want to see less genocide can choose between the only other candidate with a chance, who will commit slightly less genocide, or Nader. That's a load of shit we all know Nader can't win in the persent system, teh nazi bastards won't even let him into their debates. So most of them will probably even vote for Kerry. But the Anarchists will, if voting for anyone, support Nader, period. That's the best example I can give of why we need more Anarchists.

[Laura]

It doesn't seem like you people who claim to be anarchists, really know what anarachy is. Anarchy means the physically strong prey on the weak, period.

Government is not as dirty word for rich fat cats keeping the working man down, although you may believe that is how it plays out in this country. Government at its very essence refers to an organizing system designed to keep order, justice and peace within its region, and provide for the best interests of its citizens. The fact that our government in practice does not fulfill these goals to your satisfaction does not mean that the concept of government is flawed.

If any of you spent one week, just one week in an anarchic system (ie no system), you would come back either dead or begging for order. Human beings are NOT, as a whole, sweet-tempered and gentle to their fellow creature, and in a world without order, most people, if they believe they can get away with it, will lie, cheat, steal or kill for their own personal gain. I'm not being cynical--I'm being realistic.

What you guys want is not anarachy. It seems to be small, localized, community government. Unless you love mob mentality and adore the survival only of the strongest and most ruthless, you do not want anarchy.

Sorry, guys.

[Jordan]

Why not change the name from "anarchy" to:

"kind of a, but not really, sorta like a, almost but not really it, government non-governed system"